Tuesday, April 05, 2005

1 The LORD called unto Moses, and spoke unto him out of the tent of meeting, saying:

The Midrash interprets this as: of all the numerous names Moshe had (and the Midrash interprets various psukim to demonstrate Moshe's other names, Hashem chose to call him only the name that Pharaoh's daughter gave him. Thus, וַיִּקְרָא, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, "and He called unto Moshe."

Moshe's name is not a trivial matter. I already posted once about it, but wish to elaborate a bit more.

The first thing to know about Biblical etymologies is that they do not always work out linguistically. This is not a bug, it is a feature. (If it were a bug, it would be entomology, not etymology :) That is, it is quite common that the name does not resolve according to grammar to bear the exact meaning, or turn out to be the same root, as one might expect from the impetus described in the verse. Other factors besides linguistic derivation play a role is determining a name - a name might be motivated by assonance or sound symbolism, for example.

29 And he called his name Noah, saying: 'This same shall comfort us in our work and in the toil of our hands, which cometh from the ground which the LORD hath cursed.'

Speiser, in Anchor Bible Genesis, writes:

That is, the Masoretic text (MT) gives יְנַחֲמֵנוּ, meaning "shall comfort us." This is slightly difficult because the root of that is nh.m, while the name Noach has nwh. at its root. As Speiser says, it is not so difficult, in that many biblical etymologies are not guided by linguistic considerations. Here, יְנַחֲמֵנוּ sounds similar to Noach, and thus, via assonance, it is an appropriate source for the name, at least as a biblical etymology.

By the way, Speiser starts by noting that the Septuagint, the LXX, might, but need not reflect yanuach. That is, the Greek translation might, but might not, be based on an alternate Hebrew text which had at the root of the etymology nwh., matching Noach's name better. The thing is, you cannot really tell based on the Greek translation, because it could have about as easily have at its base the Hebrew יְנַחֲמֵנוּ, as we have in our Masoretic texts. And even if it did reflect a variant reading, the Masoretic text would be better, since it is a more difficult reading. That is, under the principle of lectio difficilior, the rule of the difficult word, under certain situations, the more difficult word choice is more likely the original, since one is prone to emend the text to make it easier {in this case, to "fix" the etymology}, rather than in the opposite direction, making the text harder. (See my post Megilla and lectio difficilior.)

At any rate, this is an example, among many, of Biblical etyomologies that do not break down lingustically. Here, it is assonance at play, or else sound symbolism that considers Noach and Nachem to be related because of their similar sounds. (An idea not so farfetched in fact, in certain instances Hebrew, though I would not necessarily take it as far and comprehensive as, say, Rav Shamshon ben Refael Hirsch.)

22 And Zillah, she also bore Tubal-cain, the forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron; and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

Once again, the etymology is not linguistically based, and Speiser explains it is sound symbolism. Why? For the roots do not exactly work out. However, since they sound similar, kaniti is the etymology given for Kayin.

23 And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'

Speiser notes:

Here is possibly another example of assonance. The claim Speiser makes reference to here is that isha comes from the root `nsh. That is, if you look at the word isha, אִשָּׁה, you will note that there is a strong dagesh in the letter shin. This reflects a letter nun that has been assimilated into the shin, such that the word is * `insha --> ish:a. Thus, the masculine form would be `enosh, rather than `ish.

Ibn Ezra promotes the Biblical etymology, saying that אִשָּׁה does in fact come from אִישׁ. The yud quiesces, compelled by the fact that otherwise people might confuse it with אִישָׁהּ, "her husband." Thus, the strong dagesh causing gemination of the shin is the result of the assimilation of the yud, not a nun.

{We can look at it another way. With the elision of the yud, the vowel transforms from a full chirik, which is a long vowel, to a deficient chirik, which is a short vowel. Long (vowelled) unstressed syllables may be open syllables, but unstressed syllables with short vowels must be closed. Thus, the gemination via strong dagesh of the shin, such that it closes the syllable `ish and begins the syllable shah. }

Both אִישׁ and אִשָּׁה use the root אנש, `nsh, to form their plurals. For men, it is אנשים, and for women, נשים. According to the claim that אִשָּׁה also comes from אנש, then three out of four come from this single root.

Assuming we say that אשה does come from אנש, then this etymology of אִשָּׁה by assonance is more problematic than the other cases. Here, it seems te the etymology of the word, in which case it should reflect the actual linguistic basis. I would point out, though, that the word אִשָּׁה was already used in the preceding pasuk, such that this might not be the creation of the noun. True, it is possible that, just as the animals are being named a few psukim back, so too woman is named here. On the other hand, perhaps this is a Proper Noun, and is her name, changed later, after the sin, to Chava because she is the mother of all living. As her name, it could be he chose this because of its assonance to אִישׁ. Even as a regular noun, it could be that אִשָּׁה was chosen by Adam from a list of other names for woman as a counterpart of אִישׁ (as it is used throughout Torah) because of the assonance. Or, one could say, he had the option of calling her a name designating a completely different species, but chose אשה, from אנש, to designate her as the same species, and justified it with a poetic statement such as we often find by the giving of names, such that there is assonance in play.

So much for this digression. Back to the matter at hand, which is that it is quite common for a Biblical etymology to be not based on grammar, but by other considerations, such as assonance.

There are, then, two possible attitudes to take about such etymologies.

The first is that if the grammar does not work out, then the etymology is false. That is, there was some true etymology, long forgotten, and the Biblical etymology is made up by someone who did not know or did not care for grammar, or else is an imaginative explanation of the name designed for the enjoyment of the audience.

The second is that through the generations, people did not always give names to their children and others such that the impetus behind the name is an exact linguistic match. They believed in sound symbolism, or used assonance in choosing names. The names themselves might mean something, if we examine it using Hebrew, or Akkadian grammar, but the names were chosen because of assonance of other considerations. Further, not everyone was a Hebrew grammarian.

I would argue for the validity of the second attitude - I know someone named Avigayil after her grandfather Avraham.

Now, with the understanding that it is not an exception but rather almost a rule that Biblical names do not always conform 100% grammatically to the impetus given in the pasuk, we can turn to Moshe's name. His name may or may not conform exactly to the Biblical etymology, grammatically speaking, but even if it does not, it would not be earth-shattering.

Let us see what William Propp writes in Achor Bible Exodus. First, look at the citation of Ibn Ezra, in the second paragraph, third and fourth line from the end of the paragraph:

1) Ibn Ezra does indeed state that grammatically speaking, it should have been mashuy rather than Moshe, but he would have taken offense at the way his opinion is being characterized here. What Ibn Ezra actually said was that you should not be bewildered by the fact that given the reasoning behind the name, it should have been mashuy, for in general, many Biblical names do not follow the dictates of grammar.

This is why I offered these examples of assonance in Biblical names - to show that it is in fact a common practice.

Thus, even if it would mean "Drawer from the water," this should be absolutely no problem in terms of it being the true etymology of Moshe's name -- assuming one adopts attitude number two. Instead, we see attitude number one - that the etymology is spurious, and that there was a true etymology which is not known by the author.

1.5) I would add: Pharaoh's daughter is not a Semitic grammarian such that she would choose a name that works out grammatically.

2) It is also possible that Moshe's name would be grammatically correct, assuming it is the Qal passive participle (usually, we have a different form than Qal, namely Nif'al, functioning as the passive), as suggested by David Noel Freedman. Propp notes this possibility, but also notes that it is rare, this seeming to be a reason to reject it. In fact, the qal passive participle may be more common than we think, since it is a matter of vowelization - many Puals might be interpreted as Qal passive particles. Also, rare forms are often really non-rare archaic forms, where the grammar has moved on since the time it was usual. Often these forms appear in Biblical poetry since archaic forms are poetic. But, as I suggested in a previous post, names also do not change as quickly as the grammar, so this form may not have been rare at all when Moshe was named, or else was chosen because its archaic nature made the name poetic.

3) He points out that an Egyptian princess is giving him a Hebrew name, an unlikely occurrence, and one that hints at dim familiarity with the "true" Egyptian origin of the name.

But we must remember that this is an Egyptian princess who, upon seeing the boy, exclaimed "From the Hebrew children is this one!" She is the one who sought a Hebrew nursemaid for the infant. Moshe knew he was a Hebrew, such that when he grew up, he went out to see how the Egyptian taskmasters were treating his bretheren. Pharaoh's daughter was able to converse with Miriam and Yocheved, so either they spoke Egyptian or she spoke Hebrew. Also, if you look at the psukim, Moshe was not named immediately, but after he grew up a bit. Pharaoh's daighter had plenty of time to consult with Yocheved, Miriam, or some Hebrew speaking advisor who could tell her an appropriate Hebrew name for the boy she is raising in the palace as a Hebrew.

Thus, the fact that she chooses a Hebrew name is not surprising at all.

It can be evidence of spurious imaginitive etymology if you really want to use it for this, but one need not be compelled by this to think that the etymology must be made up.

4) Even assuming the Biblical etymology is false, other Hebrew etymologies are possible. One possibility is "Drawer Out." Once we discard the etymology as fictional, we may as well also discard the Egyptian princess giving the name as fictional. If so, why go for an Egyptian etymology?

To cite Propp: "The likelihood of Hurrian, Kassite, or Sumerian derivation is surely low. If Moses' name is not Hebrew, what could it be but Egyptian?"

But how does he know it is not Hebrew? He rejected a specific Hebrew etymology, but not any possible Hebrew etymology. Especially once you discard the narrative, which opens up an entirefield of possibilities.

5) The Egyptian etymology is not as good as the Hebrew one. That is, it is only part of a name. It was thus something like Thutmose with the Thut dropped off. He says Mose can stand on its own. We do in fact see this in Hebrew theophoric {lit. "carrying god"} names, such that Azaryahu becomes Azzur. But while Mose {"Son"} is theoretically possible, do we actually have concrete instances of this name? (I don't know - he uses the words "can stand alone.")

Further, some voice reservations. Why? Because Moshe should be Mose. That is, it should then be מסה, not משה. The sh and s are different phones (sounds). Plus, we know that the ס is used for these Egyptian "Mose" names. Consider Ramses, רעמסס, which is supposedly the same - it is Ra' + MSS = Son of Ra. If ש is being used to denote this phone, it should be רעמשש.

He defends it by saying that it is admittedly difficult, but do you have a better suggestion?! It is not likely Sumerian, Kassite or Hurrian.

Meanwhile, the Hebrew works out perfectly phonetically.

6) There are other suggestions he mentions and rejects, which might have merit, but you can see them in the clip I provided above.

7) Meanwhile, some people regard this Egyptian etymology as gospel (pardon the expression), many probably because they do not know the details behind it, but just know that "that is what scholars say." That is what some (probably most) Biblical scholars say. Others suggest other things.

Because the Egyptian etymology is the "scholarly" one, some may assume that it must be true and then try to work it into the pasuk. This was the subject matter of a post on Hirhurim (Moses and Mada). He notes that the Netziv explains that he is called Moshe because the verse says that "he became her son." The statement "Because I drew him out of the water" in incidental, just explaining why she considered him her son. The pasuk:

10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses, and said: 'Because I drew him out of the water.'

While this is a possible explanation of the pasuk, I think it is farfetched as peshat, because this form of [s]he called / for [s]he said is used many times, and it always is the etymological basis for the name.

I would possibly agree to a dual etymology (Hebrew and Egyptian), but the pashtan in me rejects the Netziv's explanation of the pasuk.

I think more likely is that either assonance is in play here, such that the grammar need not work out, or else that it is the rare Hebrew Qal passive participle form.

8 comments:

Anonymous
said...

I believe that there were Egyptian words used by the Pharoah's daughter that refer to "draw out" most likely both a verb and noun conveying the idea of "drawing out" but I believe that these were translated or transliterated into Hebrew by Moshe(Moses) and is what we have now in the Hebrew text.

I wanted to add that you are doing a great job of showing the etymology of Moshe. I believe that Moshe is a Hebrew word that was translated or transliterated from an underlying Egyptian word having to do with"drawing out" and I do not agree with the Egyptian and other scholars who want to nullify or minimize the etymology given in the Torah.

I completely disagree that ש are ס are phonemes which cannot interchange. We find them interchanging in cognate languages all the time. Hebrew אסלאם and Arabicالإسلام, which is אלאשלאם in modern Hebrew are obviously the same word.

Apart for evolutionary processes where consonants interchange, also do not forget that many thousands of years ago there were no dictionaries dictating proper spellings or consistency. As it happens, triliteral Semitic languages are very good for naturally, intuitively spelling things consistently and "correctly," but clearly this becomes much less intuitive when it comes to transcribing foreign words.

but back *then*, were the shin / sin, and samech (particularly the last two) interchangeable, assuming we wish to read it as a sin? what was the phonemic value of the original sin? even scholars propounding it admit some difficulty in the matching, and that is before we have the better match manifested elsewhere in the same story.

interesting point about the lack of consistency, though i'm not sure I agree. would the same author transcribe the same name or name portion in different ways?

to further explain, does אסלאם mean Islam? are both of these modern Hebrew, where the phonemes have converged? one looks like a transliteration of the English word while the other seems more attuned to the Arabic etymology, and thus has the lamed of al- and uses the shin/sin for the root shalom as submission.

i agree that different phonemic choices are possible. but shin/sin is NOT a very good match, to the extent that the scholars propounding it make weak excuses which are readily overcome (by saying it is indeed Hebrew, as kal passive or as a completely different Hebrew etymology). that Hebrew encoding within the same story by the same author was clearly capable of making the better match of samech for this precise word / root of MSS just further underscores the awkwardness of the original proposal.

>but back *then*, were the shin / sin, and samech (particularly the last two) interchangeable, assuming we wish to read it as a sin

1. Back when?2. I'm not a Hirschian philologist, but it seems to me that sibilants can interchange. Even shin and samech. What, you never met a Litvak or someone with a speech impediment?3. As for lack of consistency, I've seen enough texts with inconsistencies to know that this is normal for a text, especially before a language is codified through lexicons. Also, the Torah itself is inconsistent in the spelling of numerous *Hebrew* words, and this becomes much greater if you include Tanach in general. Whether these are due to scribal error or sloppiness or just a different perception of how to write correctly I cannot tell you, but I think inconsistent spellings is just not a great crisis. We're used to a more stable orthography, although in some ways 21st century English isn't even as consistent as millenia old triliteral Semitic.

As for Islam, only one is Hebrew. The other *is* Arabic, only I wrote it with Hebrew letters. I meant to point out that in Arabic it uses a shin, while in Hebrew it uses a samech. I don't think that 'Islam' is a freestanding Arabic word, so I didn't write it אשלאם, instead I wrote it אלאשלאם, which is an exact correspondence with the Arabic.

I think the reason why it is written with a samech in Hebrew is because in Arabic there is no samech, only a sin, which is a sort of separate letter. IIRC in Judeo-Arabic they also wrote Arabic sins with samech.

I agree that etymology isn't an anything-goes game, or it shouldn't be. But all I'm saying is that the inconsistency and seemingly inexact correspondence between phonemes may be entirely insignificant.

indeed, that's the answer! Moshe, as we know, spoke with a speech impediment due to trying to eat hot coals as an infant. he would thus be a psilos like Amos, and would pronounce his name as Thut-Mosh rather that Thut-Mos.

;)

I agree you don't need to be a Hirschean philologist to accept switching of sibilants.

Overheard: What do you call that again?
-
Older fellow with glasses: I see that book in your taliis bag, called "Forgiveness". What is it about? New Age Guy: It is about how you have to forgive all t...

Recent Posts

YESHIVA WORLD NEWS

Followers

about

parshablog is published by (rabbi) josh waxman (joshwaxman [at] yahoo [dot] com), a grad student in Revel, a grad student in a Phd program in computer science at CUNY. i recently received semicha from RIETS. this blog is devoted to parsha as well as whatever it is i am currently learning.